News
Florida wants to build SpaceX and Blue Origin three extra rocket landing pads
First reported by Florida Today, economic development agency Space Florida has expressed serious interest in funding the construction of two major space infrastructure projects in Cape Canaveral, a runway for a prospective Boeing spaceplane and a separate landing zone with up to three pads open for vertical rocket landings from companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others.
KSC reviewing state proposals for new Launch Complex 48, Landing Zone 2: https://t.co/qjoWa0rNoa
— James Dean (@flatoday_jdean) August 6, 2018
SpaceX already operates its duo of rocket landing pads (Landing Zones) designated LZ-1 and LZ-2. Located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station property, those pads have already supported 11 successful Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rocket landings, beginning with the company’s first-ever Falcon 9 booster recovery (December 2015) and ending more recently with the jaw-dropping mirrored landings of both Falcon Heavy side boosters after the rocket’s inaugural launch.
The exact operational capacity of those SpaceX-built landing zones is not entirely clear, meaning that it’s difficult to know if or when SpaceX would need access to two or even three additional pads. Built out of high-temperature concrete and serviced by a handful of automated fire control water jets, the only visible wear and tear the pads seem to suffer through is the routine destruction of their radar-reflective paint, intended to help Falcons more easily determine the vertical distance to their landing targets and thus accurately throttle and gimbal the one or three Merlin engines used to land.
-
- The first successfully recovered Falcon 9 rocket booster now sits proudly in front of SpaceX’s Hawthorne, CA factory and headquarters. (Steve Jurvetson)
-
- Falcon Heavy’s side boosters seconds away from near-simultaneous landings at Landing Zones 1 and 2. (SpaceX)
-
- Elon Musk walks among his recovered Falcon Heavy boosters at LZ-1 and 2. (Elon Musk)
It’s entirely possible that that radar-reflective coating is landing-critical, but the fact that just one of SpaceX’s two LZs was painted with it for Falcon Heavy’s dual rocket landings indicates that it’s at most a useful crutch. As such, the only thing lost by repeated and high-frequency landings at LZ-1 and LZ-2 would be a coat of aesthetically pleasing but nonfunctional paint. Over time, it’s likely that maintenance and refurbishment would be necessary, but the pads currently do not require any critical refurbishment to the landing areas themselves between Falcon landings.
As such, the only conceivable instance where SpaceX would obviously need three or even four rocket landing pads would be multiple lightweight Falcon Heavy launches just days apart or a Falcon Heavy launch followed within a few days by a light Falcon 9 launch. A need for that capability is almost certainly a year or more away, as 2019 is shaping up to be a slow period for space launch compared to recent years.
-
- SpaceX’s LZ-1 pad just after a Falcon 9 landing. Note the black, radar-reflective paint. (SpaceX)
-
- SpaceX’s West Coast landing zone is preparing for its debut, currently NET October 6th 2018. (Pauline Acalin/Teslarati)
SpaceX’s next land-based rocket landing may actually occur on the West Coast, marking the debut of the company’s first Californian rocket landing zone after the late-September launch of the Argentinian SAOCOM-1A Earth observation satellite.
Space Florida is an official wing of the Florida state government tasked specifically with shepherding the region’s truly unique space industry and spaceflight infrastructure with an annual budget averaging between $10 and 20 million. More importantly, the agency has direct access to Florida legislators, allowing it to have some level of access to the entire state’s borrowing powers for the purpose of petitioning for and securing invaluable loans for companies involved in Florida’s space economy or considering joining in.
For prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket recovery fleet check out our brand new LaunchPad and LandingZone newsletters!
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
